No!

Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, the difficulty for those of us on the ground, Muslim and Christian, who are trying to work at good community relations is that reportage of these crimes against humanity in the media can fuel hate crime against Muslim people and destroy the trust that we are trying to build in our communities. Does the Minister agree that we need to develop language that learns some lessons from the man who witnessed the Leytonstone tube attack in 2015, who said: “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv”—language that does not incriminate the entire Muslim community, despite their rejection of violent terrorists as not true Muslims—so that we can all stand together under the same banner of peace?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the multitude of investigations that took place following UK operations in Iraq only arose following a definitive ruling by the court that the ECHR applies even overseas, by which time operations in Iraq had concluded. No one, least of all the Government, desires to see repeated inquiries; that is in no sense a desirable state of affairs. My original answer shows, I hope, that we wish to minimise this as far as possible but, at the same time, the Government have a duty to obey the ruling of the courts and to ensure that criminal allegations against the Armed Forces are investigated properly.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find it very difficult to advise a young person to consider a career in the regular Armed Forces, because it appears that neither the chain of command nor Ministers can protect a serviceman from these types of allegations?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am very sorry to hear my noble friend’s view on that matter. As I have said, it is an issue of great regret that service personnel and veterans have been subject to repeated inquiries. As my original answer showed, if UK troops are deployed on overseas operations in the future, we will ensure that the Armed Forces are resourced properly to investigate any allegations at that time, rather than be subject to a slew of retrospective allegations, which frankly have been very difficult to get to the bottom of.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is referring principally to the situation that applies to veterans of the Northern Ireland campaign, and I have a lot of sympathy with what he says. However, it is the Government’s policy to adhere to the Stormont House Agreement of December 2014, under which some legacy institutions will be set up. Those institutions will be under a duty to ensure that our veterans are not unfairly treated or disproportionately investigated, and will reflect that 90% of deaths in the Troubles were caused by terrorists, rather than members of the Armed Forces. The next stage in that process is to consult publicly, which we will do before long.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is something odd about this situation? It is many years now since any of the Northern Irish republican terrorists who murdered our friends Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Tony Berry and others, who attempted to murder the then Prime Minister, and who crippled my wife and gravely injured me—it is a very long time since any of those sort of people have been brought to trial. When any suggestion of that is made, they wave their “get out of jail free” cards, which they were issued by former Prime Minister Blair. However, in the meantime, soldiers who were doing their duty protecting us and the citizens of Northern Ireland against those sort of terrorists are still under threat.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: But, my Lords, we are now in 2017. Some of my best friends are hereditary Peers, but this is not about the individuals concerned; it is about the system. Many “Blackadder” fans in your Lordships’ House will remember the Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election. As Blackadder said, it was half an acre of sodden marshland in the Suffolk fens with an empty town hall, a population of three rather mangy cows, a dachshund named Colin and a small hen in its late forties. Such rotten boroughs in real places had larger electorates than some of our hereditary Peers’ by-elections and they were abolished in 1832. We all know that my noble friend Lord Grocott has a cunning plan. Is it not time for the Government to support his Bill?

Lord Young of Cookham: I am grateful to my noble friend, and for her contribution to our debate on housing last week. She will be aware that there was a manifesto commitment to safeguard the green belt. The planning policy indicates that the green belt should be developed only where all other opportunities have been explored, such as brownfield sites and building at higher densities in urban areas. However, we go on to say that if at the end of that it is necessary, to develop in the green belt. Some areas of green belt do not live up to their name; they are sometimes very unattractive pieces of land. We are consulting on local authorities in the White Paper; if it is necessary for them to encroach on the green belt, they should make complementary provision elsewhere to replace the amenity that has been lost.

This side!

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I hope we can have a few moments to discuss this. I had thought that perhaps the Senior Deputy Speaker might have introduced this Motion to explain the basis of our consideration. As the noble Lord, Lord Young  of Cookham, pointed our earlier, very often things go through on the nod—as they did in 2010 in relation to  hereditary Peers—without Members realising fully what is happening. We ought to know what is happening with this Motion.
And we have plenty of time. As I understand it, the House will again rise before tea-time, for the third day running this week, because the Government are so ossified and petrified by Brexit that they are unable to do anything else. I thought that would wake some people up on the other side. There are a number of questions that I hope that the Senior Deputy Speaker will deal with.
This consideration today is the revival of a Bill that was considered at Second Reading on 29 March 2017 in the Commons. It was lost because of the general election. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker indicate whether this will create a precedent? I am sure that many Members of this House, including my noble friend Lord Grocott, would welcome the opportunity to revive Bills that have been lost one way or another. Revival of Bills is an unusual procedure that I had not heard of before. Are we creating a precedent?
Secondly, this was dealt with in the House of Commons under Standing Order 188B, which deals with the revival of Bills. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker explain which Standing Order we are dealing with it under? I presume that it is not the same Standing Order; it will be one for the House of Lords. No doubt the Clerk of the Parliaments will be able to advise him if I talk a little longer—

And more slowly.

Motion

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I remain to be convinced about the need for the Bill. The services already have an ability to operate flexible working. I lament, and certainly remain dismayed by, the continued use of the expression “part-time” to characterise the nature of what the Bill entails.
I recognise the amendment on this point was defeated on Report, but it required a Government three-line Whip to defeat the many excellent arguments by protagonists in favour. It was hardly a moral victory for the Government. Since Report, the senior and junior servicepeople I have spoken to have been equally appalled. Dislike for the expression “part-time” will be felt in particular by those who have requested no geographic separation yet who continue to work full-time. They will also be called “part-time” people even though they are working full-time. How does the Minister explain that? I really believe that a mistake has been made here and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Chiefs of Staff explicitly support the use of the expression “part-time”.
On a separate subject, I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on whether the ceilings for manpower numbers will take into account the provisions of the Bill. In other words, if the full scope and feasibility of flexible working for serving members of the Armed Forces is to be realised, there must presumably come a point where the current mechanism for accounting for liability—headcount—gives way to full-time equivalence.
The Bill’s implementation will have to be handled very carefully if the expectations of service men and women are not to be falsely raised. As the Minister said on Report:
“We are not talking about large numbers: we expect only a modest number of our people to either work part-time or restrict their absence from their home bases”.—[Official Report, 11/10/17; cols. 250.]
In the case of the Royal Navy—which is extremely tautly manned and, constrained by the government-imposed headcount, short of people anyway—that is likely to be very modest indeed. For example, we need to bear in mind that 80% of junior ranks are in seagoing billets. It is difficult to see many applications for time away being approved. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that the Bill is launched most carefully, and without fanfare and overpromising.

Amendment 1

Lord Rosser: My Lords, in the Government’s Oral Statement on Monarch Airlines of 9 October, the Secretary of State said that,
“right now our efforts are rightly focused on getting employees into new jobs and getting passengers home. After that, our effort will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options—not just ATOL, but whether it is possible to enable airlines to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves, without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into that in the months ahead”.—[Official Report, 9/10/17; Commons, cols. 27-28.]
The demise of Monarch Airlines, along with the Secretary of State’s Statement, has raised questions about the current UK financial protection regime generally for air travellers. The ATOL scheme is intended to ensure that those who purchase ATOL-protected flights and holidays are flown home at no extra cost if an ATOL company fails. However, the scheme does not offer that protection to customers who buy airline seats from airlines which are not within the ATOL scheme.
The Government have estimated that the proportion of Monarch Airlines passengers affected who were covered by the ATOL scheme and ATOL protection amounted to some 10%7 to 15%. As we know, the Government decided to step in and repatriate Monarch’s passengers regardless of whether they were among the small minority who were protected by the ATOL scheme, a decision which would appear at least to raise questions about the current scheme and arrangements.
While this Bill will update existing powers to enable different and separate arrangements to be established to align with new practices, such as linked travel arrangements, there remains a gap in consumer protection for flight-only seats sold by airlines, despite—I understand, perhaps incorrectly—the industry and the CAA’s previous calls for such a protection regime. The Bill does nothing to address that gap.
The amendment, whose intention has the support of ABTA, would through its proposed deletions to the 1982 Act provide an opportunity for the Government to say how they intend to review and update the existing arrangements and regulations, particularly in respect of flight-only travel under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, to ensure the protection of passengers in the event of a future airline failure—which as I understand  it from the Secretary of State’s statement of 9 October is, at least in part, what the Government intend and want to do.
It is really a matter for the Government, in consultation with the industry and consumers, to determine the precise framework and model for delivering any new protection regime. The Government appear to be looking for a new arrangement which would ensure that passengers in any subsequent Monarch situation are flown home at no extra cost but at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer and, presumably, to the airlines in particular and the travel industry in general.
A substantial proportion of the failure costs incurred in the ATOL scheme over the years has related to airline failures: Clarksons with Court Line; Laker and Arrowsmith Holidays with Laker Airways; ILG with Air Europe; XL Leisure Group with XL Airways; and now Monarch Travel Group with Monarch Airlines. These failures have also led to significant costs being incurred either by customers not protected under the ATOL scheme or by the taxpayer. Travel companies are also affected by the failure of an airline as they are liable for all aspects of a package holiday under the package travel regulations. While the exclusion of airlines from a scheme of protection means that their customers are not protected against financial loss, in practice those passengers—both British and those in other European countries such as Italy and Germany—have been repatriated at a cost to taxpayers and other industry participants. This surely adds to confusion when failure occurs, particularly around what is and what is not protected under the ATOL scheme. There is also a lack of clarity around the meaning of the ATOL-protected branding and ABTA has consistently called for it to be made much clearer that ATOL protection applies only to a particular set of holiday arrangements rather than the company as a whole.
The amendment is designed to provide the Government with the opportunity to say how they will end the area of exposure to the Government, passengers and taxpayers caused by unprotected airline seat-only sales, and to consider what a new regulatory framework might look like in the event of insolvency. In so doing, it would also enable the Government to fulfil the Secretary of State’s commitment of 9 October to,
“look at all the options”,
and,
“ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again”.
The Government have said they are going to consult and look at all the options as part of the process of,
“working through the reforms necessary to ensure passengers do not find themselves in this position again”.
Indeed, the Government said in their 9 October Statement that they would be putting a lot of effort into this,
“in the weeks and months ahead”.
More than two weeks since that Statement, have the Government made official approaches to the industry and consumers with a view to commencing consultation about the sorts of mechanisms beyond ATOL which could be implemented to address the issue and consequences to passengers of future airline insolvency? What will be the timespan of such consultation? Which organisations, companies and bodies do the Government  intend to consult, and who from beyond and outside the industry do they also intend to approach? Finally, by when do the Government expect to reach conclusions about the actions and changes they intend to make to deliver on the Secretary of State’s promise following the demise of Monarch airlines that,
“passengers do not find themselves in this position again”?
Presumably that commitment was not made without at least some idea of the possible ways of achieving that particular goal.
We certainly cannot continue with a situation where nobody is sure whether the Government will or will not fly people back home in future at no extra cost in the event of another airline failure, and where there is also an apparent lack of clarity for many passengers and potential passengers under the existing arrangements and ATOL scheme about their rights or lack of rights and their protections or lack of protections. In moving my amendment, I express the hope that the Minister will be able to give some answers to the points and questions I have made and asked in the light of the specific commitments given by the Secretary of State on future objectives and intentions in his Statement of 9 October. I beg to move.

Amendment 2

Lord Callanan: Before I turn to the subject of the noble Baroness’s amendment, which is about information to consumers, let me go through again the business of linked travel arrangements, which I know is causing   some confusion—not least to us in the department. As I said to her when we discussed this privately, it was inserted into the directive and a lot of work is going on to work out what it actually is.
The package travel directive has broadened the scope of a package, so it is now clear that protection should apply when customers book customised combinations of travel online. As the noble Baroness outlined in her speech, it is not at all clear what a linked travel arrangement actually is. It is obvious if there is a direct advertisement on a flight website for a linked hotel and that hotel is promoted by the airline directly and is on the same web page. That, it seems to me, is an obvious linked travel arrangement. However, as we know, and as the noble Baroness has discovered in her meticulous research, on the internet, many adverts on webpages have no connection whatsoever with the originator of the webpage. They are placed by advertising companies, principally Google, among others, and the originator of the page has no idea what adverts are appearing on their page. So if you click on an associated advert, that would not necessarily be a linked travel arrangement, but how is the consumer supposed to differentiate between those two things?
Those are the issues we are grappling with at the moment: trying to come up with a definition of a linked travel arrangement and to implement it in regulations. As the noble Baroness said, the directive introduces information provisions to ensure that consumers have a good awareness of the kind of product they are buying, and we are consulting extensively with the industry to try to ensure that that is the case.
Turning to the subject of the amendment, I recognise the purpose of the proposed new clause and the need to ensure that consumers are better informed about consumer protection when they make a booking. This is well-intentioned and entirely in keeping with the Government’s wish that passengers should have a robust level of protection, and that their rights should be communicated to them in a timely and clear way.
However, I do not think that this is the right approach at this time. Let me explain why. First, we need to be mindful that package holidays and linked travel arrangements often do not involve a flight. They could involve a journey by road, rail or sea, so the Civil Aviation Act 1982 is not the most appropriate place for such an obligation. The UK already has regulations in place through the package travel regulations, which cover package holidays across all modes. We are in the process of updating these regulations alongside the Bill to extend them to cover linked travel arrangements, in line with the EU package travel directive.
This brings me to my second point. The new clause would unnecessarily duplicate the new information requirements in the EU package travel directive. The directive has introduced new information provisions which are designed to improve information for consumers. This sets out the specific information that must be provided to consumers about the type of product they are buying and the corresponding level of protection. This must be provided to the consumer both before and after they buy a package or a linked travel arrangement. We have recently completed a consultation on the directive, which proposed that the information  provisions will be brought into force in 2018, through changes to the package travel regulations. We are  also planning to retain the ATOL certificate alongside these new requirements to help reinforce awareness of consumer protection.
Finally, I fully accept the need to understand the lessons learnt from the Monarch failure, which I outlined earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to respond in the right way. We have to understand the issues that need to be addressed and whether we can make sensible changes to the laws. That is why we are undertaking an internal review, so that we can bring forward solutions that are feasible and have been assessed as being practically enforceable. As the Secretary of State said in his statement in the other place:
“I do not want us to rush into doing something without doing the ground work properly. We need to look carefully at what has happened, learn the lessons and make any modifications necessary. I assure the House that that is what we will do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/17; col. 40.]
It is quite possible, of course, that additional information requirements will follow from that review, but it is important that we consider the options and ensure that the steps we take are the right ones and that they both work in the UK and are compatible with EU law.
I therefore believe that an amendment to introduce legislation of this nature—however well-intentioned the noble Baroness is—is premature. So, in summary, if her concern is that the Government are not taking steps to ensure that consumers are informed about consumer protection when they book a trip, I hope she can take comfort that we are ready to make provision through the package travel regulations and the ATOL certificates to do just what she has asked for. In addition, we will of course also consider consumer awareness as we review the lessons learnt from Monarch and, as I said earlier, as we develop our aviation strategy. Therefore, in the light of the assurances I have been able to give her, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this small but, I am sure, perfectly formed Bill. It is mildly bizarre that these relatively limited matters require primary legislation because of the European Union Act 2011. I was not allowed to be active in the House at that time as I was an MEP, but I imagine that the idea was to prevent big new federalist projects slipping into UK law through the European Communities Act. I am not sure that rather modest matters such as this were envisaged as needing primary legislation.
As the Minister said, Article 352 allows the EU to adopt an act necessary for the attainment of treaty objectives when there is no specific legal basis available in the treaties. I am not the world’s expert on the treaties, but I am quite surprised that there were no other specific articles in the treaties that would have allowed Serbian and Albanian accession to the Fundamental Rights Agency and competition co-operation enforcement with Canada. If the Minister has any information on why there was not—there are plenty of articles in the treaty—perhaps he could enlighten us.
Clearly, it is a good thing to enable Serbia and Albania to become observers in the Fundamental Rights Agency. This highlights the way that human rights commitments underpin European peace and development. I had some experience of those two countries in my early years in the European Parliament, when I was on the European Parliament delegation for south-east Europe, as it was then called, when the countries were all lumped together. There has been progress towards candidate status for accession to  the EU. I am sure the Minister would agree that, even with Brexit—if Brexit takes place—the UK is supportive of the accession ambitions of the western Balkan countries.
In moving the Motion on the Bill—I cannot remember whether the Minister repeated these words—the Minister in the other place, Margot James, highlighted that the mandate of the Fundamental Rights Agency is to improve knowledge and awareness of fundamental rights issues, so observer status for Serbia and Albania would help them benefit from the experience of good practice and evidence from EU member states on human rights. It is somewhat ironic that we are approving this decision to help Serbia and Albania in their progress towards accession to the EU, as we in the UK —on current plans—are moving away. It is also ironic that, in doing so, we are acknowledging the vital role that fundamental rights play in European co-operation. While we seek to leave the Fundamental Rights Agency and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, I would submit that those instruments are as important to the UK as they are to Serbia and Albania.
On the EU-Canada competition enforcement agreement, I have not seen any response from the Government to the question raised in the other place as to whether the UK would seek to participate in that agreement after Brexit. That might have to be preceded by the question of whether the UK will seek a competition enforcement co-operation agreement with the EU itself. As the Minister has pointed out, post Brexit, UK firms which do business in the EU 27 will be affected by this agreement. It would seem very unhelpful if the UK itself were not part of these arrangements, both between the UK and the EU and with third countries such as Canada. Could the Minister therefore let us know the state of play on those two dimensions, with the EU and regarding participation in the Canada agreement?
Could the Minister also amplify a little on what data protection safeguards are in the Canada agreement? He mentioned independent oversight. We will discuss on Monday, in Committee on the Data Protection Bill, the relevance of fundamental rights to data exchange. The Government do not plan to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights, so there is an issue about the underpinning of fundamental rights on data protection in this country. That could, therefore, affect an adequacy decision by the European Commission on data transfers between the UK and the EU. Could he tell us whether, in the assessment of the Government, that matter has a relationship, as I would contend that it does, in situations such as this where data is going to be transferred, potentially between the CMA and the European Commission and then with third countries such as Canada? It seems to me that there are quite a few interlocking issues here, but particularly concentrated on the exchange and flows of data.
Is the UK going to seek an agreement with the EU on competition enforcement co-operation? Is it going to seek to participate in the EU-Canada agreement? Will a necessary prelude to both those instruments potentially mean that the UK has to secure an adequacy decision from the Commission on data transfers? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those specific questions, either now or later. However, it will not surprise him to hear that, broadly, we on these Benches welcome the content of the Bill.

Baroness Maddock: I am grateful to the Minister for ranging a little wider than the regulation before us. I was going to ask him about how some of this fitted in with the Government’s wider policy aims, particularly on decarbonisation. I recognise that industries that are intensive users of energy find some of the decarbonising regulations quite difficult. I recognise that there is a balance to be struck, but I would be interested to know whether the department has looked carefully at or has any figures about what the balance will be on decarbonisation after this.
The Minister also replied a little bit to the criticisms of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I read with interest what it had to say because six weeks are recommended for consultation, but there were precisely five weeks, and it is rather bad practice to consult across the summer holiday period, which is what the Government did. That was pretty unfortunate. They were trying to get regulations in place by February 2017. In the end, they did not come until March, so I  think something is not working quite right in the Minister’s department. He is fairly new there, so I challenge him to see whether in the next year it can have less criticism from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee when it brings forward matters such as this.
Apart from that, I recognise that the Government are trying to balance several things: how they can help industries that are intensive users, the regulations for decarbonisation and state aid rules from Europe. I recognise that that is not easy. I hope they have it right. I cannot profess to understand some of the very complicated matters in these types of regulations—I wish we had Lord Jenkin of Roding here as he would put us right if we had got it wrong. We are happy to support these regulations as far as they go. I hope we are not supporting something that we will regret in future.